A Detailed Suggestion for an "Army Goals" system that avoids micro

Yaitz331

Second Lieutenant
31 Badges
May 3, 2018
142
238
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
I think the penalty for changing an attack target should be less

in ww1 for an example the goal of many campaigns was basically never really met.

and the Public did care little
I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by "Strategic Targets". A Strategic Target isn't just "the goal of a campaign", it's "the objective that this army is working towards". So, if we look at Germany's three major WW1 offensives on the Western front (the initial Schlieffen Plan, the Battle of Verdun, and the Spring Offensives), all of them would have a Strategic Target of Paris. Taking Verdun as an example, the Germans were trying to take the city of Verdun; however, the reason they were trying to take Verdun was because they wanted Paris. Their goal was Paris, and taking Verdun would bring the German Army closer to taking Paris. For the entire war, the German army on the Western Front had a Strategic Target of Paris. In this suggested mechanic, not taking Paris doesn't inherently anger the public (although presumably both the heavy losses and the British blockade does), but admitting that Paris is unachievable and trying for a different Strategic Goal would.

of course if you continuesly fail to take a target you loose manpower which likely affects the public opinions you and yadda yadda you don’t want that.
I presume casualties will increase War Exhaustion independent of this suggested mechanic.

also you should be able to have multiple targets: This of course if taken to the extreme will severely restrict your ability to win the war by having too many pointwhere the general „focuses“
The problem is that multiple strategic targets give much more potential for manipulating the system to micro, and don't add much flavor. If you just want your army to push southwest, you could just pick a bunch of Targets to the southwest; when you can only pick one target, you can't use the system to just generally push in a specific direction independent of a specific goal.

And yet again, a Strategic Target is an objective that a whole army is working to capture. Having multiple of those doesn't make sense.

I would also like to have these points to be not stagnant but Variable

For an example in the start of the game in Germany the most important things are likely the agrarian fields and the towns but as you rapidly industrialize the Rheinland becomes the industrial heartland and there are many cities which’s are far more important then beforehand like Berlin becoming even more important then before due to the electric and chemical industry

So these points of interest if you will should be geographic locations like mountain ranges or rivers, infrastructure centers or lines, big cities and industrial centers most of these would be considered by an algorithm like a railroad that transports at least a certain amount of the enemy’s supply’s is one and your industry next to the enemy’s borders is one of your defendables
Fields/industry generally are just a feature of the land you're taking, not a Strategic Target. Like I said before, a Strategic Target isn't just what the goal of a specific campaign is, it's what the goal of all of this army's operations are. If that goal is just generally "Occupy enemy land", that doesn't require a specific Strategic Target, just a general instruction to take enemy land.

Not every single point of interest should be a Strategic Target. A Strategic Target should only be a specific goal that an entire army might be working towards. So, taking a river or capital city would be a Strategic Target, but taking a mountain pass or cutting (rather then securing) a railroad would not be; those are part of a larger strategic goal.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:

Sharkseant

Corporal
37 Badges
Mar 21, 2020
31
39
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
I think you're misunderstanding what I mean by "Strategic Targets". A Strategic Target isn't just "the goal of a campaign", it's "the objective that this army is working towards". So, if we look at Germany's three major WW1 offensives on the Western front (the initial Schlieffen Plan, the Battle of Verdun, and the Spring Offensives), all of them would have a Strategic Target of Paris. Taking Verdun as an example, the Germans were trying to take the city of Verdun; however, the reason they were trying to take Verdun was because they wanted Paris. Their goal was Paris, and taking Verdun would bring the German Army closer to taking Paris. For the entire war, the German army on the Western Front had a Strategic Target of Paris. In this suggested mechanic, not taking Paris doesn't inherently anger the public (although presumably both the heavy losses and the British blockade does), but admitting that Paris is unachievable and trying for a different Strategic Goal would.


I presume casualties will increase War Exhaustion independent of this suggested mechanic.


The problem is that multiple strategic targets give much more potential for manipulating the system to micro, and don't add much flavor. If you just want your army to push southwest, you could just pick a bunch of Targets to the southwest; when you can only pick one target, you can't use the system to just generally push in a specific direction independent of a specific goal.

And yet again, a Strategic Target is an objective that a whole army is working to capture. Having multiple of those doesn't make sense.


Fields/industry generally are just a feature of the land you're taking, not a Strategic Target. Like I said before, a Strategic Target isn't just what the goal of a specific campaign is, it's what the goal of all of this army's operations are. If that goal is just generally "Occupy enemy land", that doesn't require a specific Strategic Target, just a general instruction to take enemy land.

Not every single point of interest should be a Strategic Target. A Strategic Target should only be a specific goal that an entire army might be working towards. So, taking a river or capital city would be a Strategic Target, but taking a mountain pass or cutting (rather then securing) a railroad would not be; those are part of a larger strategic goal.
I dislike this

i personally would like a system where you could say let’s take that part and then that etc. just a let’s take Paris and his will win the war doesn’t do it for me.

i want to have some control. Like I can understand and accept that I won’t be able to micro eventhough inlove that. But I still hope that atleast i can say army 1 try to take that part so we get that industry or try to take that etc.

Because the way you suggested it it is still the same I start the war doing all the soldier deploying and then set a goal and wait.

i don’t want to simply wait.

i want to plan in which directions my offensives are generally directed.

And while I understand that micro isn’t really what you as the nations hesd/ spirit would be able to do you should be able to say that stuff is important.

Also I dislike the way fronts seemingly are planned but that likely has a pls e to argue somewhere else
 
  • 1
Reactions:

Darsara

General
92 Badges
Jul 5, 2012
1.810
1.544
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • The Kings Crusade
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Divine Wind
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • BATTLETECH
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Surviving Mars
  • 500k Club
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Victoria 2
Like yeah isn’t that kind of what we want of the game to do strategic stuff?

I dunno, Grand Strategy seems to me to be almost the opposite of micromanaging everything. Is it really Grand Strategy when you need to need constantly be stopping to remain hyper fixated on where every soldier in your army is while also managing a country, all to avoid something stupid happening the instant your back is turned? Laying out the shape of a war and letting it happen seems far more Stategic then constantly adjusting everything on the fly (or crawl).
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:

Yaitz331

Second Lieutenant
31 Badges
May 3, 2018
142
238
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
I dislike this

i personally would like a system where you could say let’s take that part and then that etc. just a let’s take Paris and his will win the war doesn’t do it for me.

i want to have some control. Like I can understand and accept that I won’t be able to micro eventhough inlove that. But I still hope that atleast i can say army 1 try to take that part so we get that industry or try to take that etc.

Because the way you suggested it it is still the same I start the war doing all the soldier deploying and then set a goal and wait.

i don’t want to simply wait.

i want to plan in which directions my offensives are generally directed.

And while I understand that micro isn’t really what you as the nations hesd/ spirit would be able to do you should be able to say that stuff is important.
The point of my suggestion is specifically to augment the existing system, not to redesign it. If you want to argue with the system itself, as opposed to this suggested addition, this thread is not the place to argue that.

For what it's worth, I think that the planned system with this addition has the potential to still be immersive, if sufficiently well-executed.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:

Sharkseant

Corporal
37 Badges
Mar 21, 2020
31
39
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
The point of my suggestion is specifically to augment the existing system, not to redesign it. If you want to argue with the system itself, as opposed to this suggested addition, this thread is not the place to argue that.

For what it's worth, I think that the planned system with this addition has the potential to still be immersive, if sufficiently well-executed.
I understand that you wanted to augment it. And I tried the same in the comment. I believe that if the system were to be augmented to give the player a bit more control it would become a viable system.
I also dislike the systeme as a whole but to simply augment it instead of a complete exchange seems more reasonable.
 

Yaitz331

Second Lieutenant
31 Badges
May 3, 2018
142
238
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
I understand that you wanted to augment it. And I tried the same in the comment. I believe that if the system were to be augmented to give the player a bit more control it would become a viable system.
I also dislike the systeme as a whole but to simply augment it instead of a complete exchange seems more reasonable.
What I meant by "augment it" was "add a feature such that the principles they laid out still hold". That's why I emphasized how this system would still disallow microing. The point of this idea is to work within the framework, both of philosophy and of mechanics, that we know so far.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:

ShepherdOfCats

Second Lieutenant
Sep 28, 2020
162
375
This thread's too good to fall off the front page.

I like it. It would be cool if you could have senior military advisors/generals lay out basic plans for accomplishing these critical objectives. You could give it an approval or veto the suggested plans. Everything else falls to the generals to carry it out. It's not unheard of for high-ranking military officials to let rulers know what they are up to during this time.

Example:

Ambrose Burnside's attack towards Fredericksburg during the Civil War. Lincoln had replaced McClellan with Burnside and wanted him to continue the push into Virginia. Some accounts say Burnside didn't really think a direct approach was a good plan, preferring instead for a sort of flanking approach downriver, one which McClellan suggested as he advised Burnside before leaving, but Lincoln pushed Burnside to carry out the direct approach.

From https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/why-fredericksburg.htm

There were challenges to the Fredericksburg movement, especially the question of how the army would get across the Rappahannock River. Regardless, Burnside was confident. Burnside telegraphed his idea of moving to Fredericksburg to both Lincoln and General-in-Chief Henry Halleck.

McClellan reviewed the Army of the Potomac one last time on November 10. Some soldiers cheered the general who led them for almost a year and a half; others cried. McClellan and his staff boarded a train and left the army on November 11.

On November 14, Halleck sent Burnside a response:

“The President has just assented to your plan. He thinks it will succeed if you move rapidly; otherwise not.”

By the time Burnside got this approval, McClellan was gone. Ready or not, the Army of the Potomac was now Ambrose Burnside’s responsibility. Roughly forty miles to the southeast of Warrenton, the city of Fredericksburg was about to become the focus of an intense struggle. It was there that Burnside would succeed or fail.

Something like this would be a good balance. It would probably involve maybe just a little bit of RNG, but mostly depend on your general's traits on the ground.

Gameplay-wise: If the AI fails to achieve its objectives, the player couldn't simply blame the AI. After all, they gave approval for the plan.
 
Last edited: